through the whole droney, spyey, guantanamo bayey stuff (not to mention things like healthcare where he has been at least partially hamstrung by the opposition) he still seems immensely popular, so you at least have to say he is a fantastic politician.

but a fantastic politician? Nah. He spent his political credit far more poorly than Clinton did, and has gotten a lot less done as a result. Although this as mentioned twice already has had a bit to do with the Republican party being more intransigent than ever before.

Clinton was a brilliant politician, but was famous for small-bore policy. His one - admittedly massive - achievement was his fiscal stuff around 1994 that created a boom economy. Outside of that he barely racked up anything. In some cases, he actively made things worse - repealing Glass-Steagall, implementing Don't Ask, Don't Tell to name two.

Gay marriage, equal pay for women act, saving the US car industry, eliminated Don't Ask Don't Tell, directed the EPA to start taking on coal polluters, first national minimum fuel standards for cars, student loan reform, credit card interest reform, looks as though he's about to raise the minimum wage for federal employees. There are plenty which I can't even remember. Individually, stuff like this isn't large and headline-grabbing, but collectively it's the biggest attempt by a president to improve people's lives since the 1960s.

There are plenty of good reasons to be disappointed with his presidency, but historically he's done rather a lot, especially given the unprecedented obstruction and the financial background. Bush was an abject failure after inheriting a SURPLUS from Bill Clinton - Obama has had to do his biz against the worst crash since the Depression. Context matters.

i'd argue on a couple of them (the actual delivery of ACA compared to what was promised, the Iraq war stuff being negated by actions in other countries) but those are some things I weren't aware of because, as you say, they aren't headline grabbers.

A website malfunctioning for the first 6 weeks is politically hugely embarrassing, but at root is a mere tech issue - materially, what happened there has zero to do with the worthiness or otherwise of the law itself.

Current estimates are that 10 million people have been covered by one facet of the law or other since it kicked in - that's a metric shit tonne of people whose lives have been directly improved. But just as importantly, the entire population now has the threat of being bankrupted by a medical accident taken away - psychologically that must be a huge deal.

The price each person pays is different according to which state they live in, how much they earn, what level of coverage they want etc - it isn't a case of paying a set fee and getting "Obamacare". A large number of people will have had their premiums reduced, not increased.

That 10 million is made up of various aspects of the law - the federal exchange (i.e. the website that was the focus of all the hoo-ha late last year) makes up less than half of that so far I think. There are other elements that get far less coverage, like an expansion of Medicaid, anyone under the age of 26 being covered under their parent's health plan etc.

but America's poorest, who didn't have insurance before and who don't have the disposable income to pay the (still considerable) fee for it, aren't really helped by it. infact they will be fined for not paying it?

A lot of people call it health INSURANCE reform, as distinct from healthcare reform - it's primarily a reform of how private health insurance companies are allowed to operate. There's never been any attempt to suggest it's equivalent to an NHS system.

And I'm not sure what you're talking about with the second part - there are subsidies for people up to 140% of the poverty line to help pay for it. Some people - i.e. the poorest - are paying only a nominal fee.

As said, there IS no set fee. It's varied person-to-person, state-to-state, age-to-age according to any number of factors - there are plenty of calculators you can use online if you want to try it out.

You'd be a leading light within Scottish Labour in absolutely no time with an attitude like that. Your fellow Tories, on the otoh, took a much more mature view (during the last minority Holyrood administration, at least) to being in opposition.